You can read the treaty of Brest for the reasons. None of them at all seem to be theological. I wonder if anyone else thinks that it was a type of "Sergianism" (although that word wasn't coined until the 20th century)?

I posted this once before: My 1924 Liturgy Book from the Presov Eparchy (published in Uzhorod) does NOT have a commemoration for the Pope of Rome in the Great Litany. He is commemorated during the Great Entrance prayer of the priest, but not as SUPREME or ECUMENICL or as PONTIFF, only as "archbishop" of Rome.

That may be so, but we're not them, are we? Our church was started in 1924 and instituted by the Pope as an exception to all the old canons about one bishop per city. ISTM, that the Pope is our Patriarch since we don't have any canonical ties to the old country.

Orthodox in what are now Ukraine and Byelorussia (Belarus) who sought reunion did see things as you describe them, hoping such a restoration of communion (with them as a full Church intact) would give them a break from Polish oppression. But frankly, Rome reneged (a.k.a. bait and switch, ‘Indian giver’), treating them like individual ‘schismatics’ returned and not like a Church in communion with the Roman one.

Well, certainly not in the objective sense. These Christians were received into communion with the Unviersal Pastor by reception of their bishops in Synod, not individually. That is simply an objective, historical fact. Their status before and after union was that of a Metropolia, until raised to a Major Archepiscopal Church in the XXth c.

What you had is two different actions. As soemtimes happened even more explictedly with Eastern Churches, they simply and unilatrally declared themselves in communion with Rome. No negotiating with Rome, no deals, no conditions, just by fiat from the Byzantine side. What's Rome going to do? Say no you are not in communion? She sure has never done so yet in history.

Then you have the issue of the civil status of the Church. This was the agreement, withthe Greek Catholics giving enough to guarantee their loyalty to the King of Poland without polonization. They cut a better deal than any other european groups in similiar situations.

>>>These Christians were received into communion with the Unviersal Pastor by reception of their bishops in Synod, not individually. That is simply an objective, historical fact.<<<

That is not at all true, Kurt. It is clear that the Bishops intended to be received into communion with the Church of Rome as an ecclesial entity, not be absorbed into it,either collectively or piecemeal. In point of fact, because of the Bull Magnus Dominum (1598), the Ruteni were received as individual repentent schismatics, and allowed to retain their traditional rites and hierarchs as a dispensation from the Bishop of Rome. Really, you need to keep up with the work of the Ukrainian Church Studies Group.

I am up to date. Neither they nor anyone else has made any claim that the faithful of these churches participated individually in any act of abjurement of schism. Even with the passage of time, such a number of people individually being received from schism would be impossible to miss documentation, and no documentation exists.

I am, of course, speaking in the objective sense. If your point is by your contemporary standards, you think the bells and whistles and greeting cards should have been done differently, that's your opinion and you have every right to it.

The Byzantine Forum provides
message boards for discussions focusing on Eastern Christianity (though
discussions of other topics are welcome). The views expressed herein are
those of the participants and may or may not reflect the teachings of the
Byzantine Catholic or any other Church. The Byzantine Forum and the
www.byzcath.org site exist to help build up the Church but are unofficial,
have no connection with any Church entity, and should not be looked to as
a source for official information for any Church. All posts become
property of byzcath.org. Contents copyright - 1996-2018. All rights
reserved.